by Logan Scisco
Most of the people reading this strategy piece are extempers who have at least one tournament under their belt. If you fall into this category, and assuming that you are attending a tournament that has only two preliminary rounds, you know that over the course of said tournament you are presented with at least six different questions during preliminary rounds, of which you will choose two to speak on. If you are an astute extemper, you might remember the questions that you drew at tournaments or at practice sessions so far this season. Take a moment to reflect on questions that you have run into thus far. What did they ask you to do? After pondering this for a moment consider this: you can usually tell what an extemp question wants you to do by looking at the first word of the question. For example, a “can” question asks you to assess whether a certain event is going to take place while a “should” question asks you to make a judgment about whether doing something is right or wrong.
Generally speaking, there are two types of extemp questions: questions that ask you for a “yes” or a “no” answer and questions that ask you for more in-depth answers. Questions that begin with words like can, do, will, and should are examples of the first variety while questions that begin with words like how, what, and why are of the second. Extempers typically handle the first type of questions well, but do very poorly answering the second type. Although you will confront more yes/no questions in your extemp career, knowing how to tackle the second type of questions is critical if you want to become a distinguished extemper. For the sake of brevity, this article will discuss how you should approach a “how” question and why this approach will help you stand out in rounds and craft more effective answers.
The “How” Question
Effective question writers will work several “how” questions into the topics they put together for tournaments. You will face them in preliminary and elimination rounds and knowing how to answer them in elimination rounds will greatly benefit you.
Here are examples of “how” questions:
*How can the international community effectively combat Somali piracy?
*How can President Obama improve his approval ratings?
*How can Republicans win control of Congress this November?
Look at each of the questions above. What are they asking you to do? The answer is that they are asking you for a plan of action. You cannot answer these questions with a “yes” or a “no” and move on. Instead, you need to come up with a 3-5 word answer that satisfies what the question is asking for. There is a correct and incorrect way to proceed here.
Incorrect Way to Answer
If I had a dollar for each time I have seen an extemper walk into a round that I am judging and answer a “how” question with a “He/she/it can do this in three ways” answer I would be a rich man and would not need to worry about the cost of law school. The “three ways” approach comes across like this:
“…so we ask today’s question ‘How can the international community effectively combat Somali piracy?’ The answer is that it can do the following three things. First, it can increase naval patrols off of Somalia’s coast. Second, it can provide more aid to the beleaguered Somali government. And finally, it can create a stronger international criminal code against piracy.”
Reading that might cause some of you to have a déjà vu-type moment. Most extempers treat “how” questions like the made up speech I just outlined so if you have been a part of this crowd don’t worry, you aren’t alone. I don’t like the “three ways/three things” approach for several reasons. First, I don’t think that it comes across as a powerful answer. Merely saying “three ways” and “three things” sounds very vague and weakens your presence and credibility. And second, I think there is a solvency problem. The question is asking you to come up with a solution to the issue, not several solutions to the issue (as a brief note, “what three steps” or “what steps should be taken” type of questions are the exception to this). Also, in order for us to be convinced that your “three ways/three things” approach will work we must be convinced that all three actions should be taken at the same time. What are the chances of that? If we look back at the Somalia question, what are the chances that the international community can effectively do all three of the steps you advocate are necessary? Better yet, are all of the steps you outline necessary? I could buy a “three ways/three things” approach in certain circumstances if extempers clarified these two lingering issues, but I have yet to see an extemper do so.
Best Way to Answer
The best way to approach a “how” question is to do what the question asks you to do: devise a plan of action that can solve the problem posed in the question. For the three questions at the beginning of this article that means you need to come up with a plan to solve Somali piracy, come up with a plan for President Obama to increase his approval rating, and come up with a plan that will help the Republicans win control of Congress. In this approach, your answer is whatever plan you come up with. Let’s go back to the Somalia question and illustrate what an effective answer would look like:
“…so we ask today’s question ‘How can the international community effectively combat Somali piracy?’ The answer is that the international community should provide more financial assistance to Somalia. This will work for three reasons. First, it can help the Somali government target militant groups that are behind piracy in the region. Second, it can help the Somali government build good will among the population and shore up its rule. And finally, it can help the nation restructure its economy and decrease the economic incentives for Somalis to participate in piracy.”
Contrast this answer with the answer I provided under the “incorrect” section. You should notice that the above answer sounds more powerful and is more argumentative. Furthermore, your answer is much more focused. Remember, extemp is only a seven minute event. If you do the “three ways/three things” approach you are only going to have 1:30 per point to discuss each of the three solutions you describe. In order to have more depth in your speech, it’s a good idea to have one plan to answer the question and then use your three points to present three reasons why that plan will work. “How” questions demonstrate why reading is an important in extemporaneous speaking because if you don’t have the proper knowledge base then answering “how” questions like this is virtually impossible. Since you know you are going to hit “how” questions in the future, this is why you should look carefully at articles, especially those published by think tanks and policy journals. Many times these articles will propose a plan to solve a current problem facing the world (the lack of Middle East peace, climate change, etc.) and justify why that approach is the best one. Let the literature in your files guide you and let it shape your response. You may not always agree with the recommendations you find, but if you have enough information to justify why that plan will be effective you should use it in a round.
Ultimately, using this approach will allow you to show off your depth of knowledge about the topic you drew for the round. It will also help you stand out against other extempers who will use the incorrect method and lack the proper depth to answer their question effectively. As with all speaking techniques and changes, it is best to experiment with this method in practice with your coach. Tournaments are for you to showcase your skills and learn, but are not the best avenues for experimentation with new methods that you are not comfortable with.
[fblike] [twitter]